From: Gerald Fisher
Sent: Thu Jun 13 13:57:26 2019
To: Alice Cannon
Cc: Dan Huff
Subject: RE: Exception lands map and past history info
Importance: Normal
Thanks Alice. Saw it was from Susan Hanson and I stopped there. Have no care in anything she has to say. She isn’t an applicant, isn’t a resident, and has no vested interest in this community except its demise. She is also a litigant against the City so be very careful on any interaction you have with her.
From: Alice Cannon <acannon@cityofmolalla.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2019 12:06 PM
To: Gerald Fisher <gfisher@cityofmolalla.com>; Dan Huff <dhuff@cityofmolalla.com>; Dan Zinder <dzinder@cityofmolalla.com>
Subject: FW: Exception lands map and past history info
Fyi
From: Susan Hansen <foxglovefarm@inbox.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2019 12:01 PM
To: Alice Cannon <acannon@cityofmolalla.com>
Subject: Exception lands map and past history info
Dear Alice,
Thanks for the time on the phone this morning. I look forward to reading the Stoneplace Apt. phase 3 file.
In support of my statements to you about the exception lands and since, from past experience with Molalla records, it can be difficult to find documents, I have attached three documents related to concerns about urban growth and the exception lands.
I have attached the map produced by the planner who was on duty when the City sought about 2,300 acres for a 50 year urban reserve based on a far too high population projection. The map shows the border of the proposed urban reserve and show in light blue the 474 acres of exception lands that were formally adopted in the comp plan from the 80's. DLCD is well aware of these exception lands.
The other two documents are statements made to two different sets of PC members - Winterbrook Planning was hired by land speculators to the north of Big Meadow to appear at several PC meetings pushing for another stab at creating an urban reserve. The Winterbrook spin was that the City did not want to use the exception lands and if an urban reserve was created it could so to speak cherry pick lands to develop.
Note the quote from a Winterbrook report when it was pushing the urban reserve and tried to claim that if a 2,300 acre urban reserve was granted, Molalla would supposedly use the exception lands first because it was clear those 474 acres were more than adequate for a 20 year land supply. I am sure you know that a city must first establish a 20 supply before it tries to justify a 50 year supply: Also, in a 2007 meeting Winterbrook told the City Council that the City had far too much land zoned industrial/commercial. That still looks to be the case to me.
Winterbrook itself wrote this in 2010 in the soon to be denied Urban Reserve/UGB proposal:
“The City recognizes that there is sufficient land within the South Exception Area to meet most identified 20-year land needs. Therefore, when Molalla expands its UGB in 2010, the South Exception Area will be considered as first priority for expansion….
Accordingly, if and when it becomes necessary to amend the UGB, Molalla will include the exception areas first. Land designated for resource use will not be included until after all of the exception areas have been included.” Winterbrook, Molalla Urban Reserve Findings Feb. 2010
That quote was funny because in 2007 the City Manager admitted in public that there were plans do a cherry stem development on EFU prime farmland beyond the exception lands - with mansions, hiking trails, tennis courts, pools, etc. Needless to say that never came about but the City and that land speculator were hooked up with a well know luxury home builder all ready to go! The "planning" got so ridiculous that the "planner" and PC were proposing to eat up new land with equestrian urban estates where horses could live 3 days a week and then be moved "somewhere else" (who knows where the poor horses were supposed to live the other 4 or so days of the week). PC meetings presented the absurd "idea" of equestrian trails going through the city. When horse owners like me noted that that kind of use would not mix with State Highways and pedestrian/bike users they amended it to show trails with hedges down the middle so the horses and pedestrians/bikes would be separated (photos were shown of mega-rich elite Southern California gated developments!) I truly wish I had some of those meetings on video.
Winterbrook was the consulting firm that drove the former quest for the urban reserve/comp plan that was denied. Here are a couple of news stories that came when Clackamas County PC and the BCC denied the plans (the CC staff report also recommended denial).
https://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/2011/04/clackamas_county_commissioners_6.html
https://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/2011/04/clackamas_county_planning_comm_1.html
The articles fail to outline the 6+ years of entirely negative feedback the City was getting from DLCD and Clackamas County which told them over and over that the population projection was far too high and that they should simply adopted a parks plan, the safe harbor population, the Downtown Master Plan and the Model Code for Small Cites instead of trying for an urban reserve / full comp plan (which there was no need for, given Molalla's size and resources).
Also, I have checked more than once with DLCD's Gordon Howard about the story that keeps coming up in Molalla that cities are required to update plans and provide a twenty year land supply, etc. Gordon Howard as recently as a couple of months ago said that was written back when the State of Oregon had money to help all the cities that were required to update comp plans do so with funding grants. However, since there is no longer money around to support comp plan updates, Gordon said there is zero pressure on any city anymore to prove 20 year supplies of land or do updates and certainly zero legal enforcement on those issues. You would certainly be welcome to fact check with Gordon, he is generous with his time, but if Molalla is again cuing up because it wants to claim it "has" to legally do that sort of planning/ UGB quest it will giving false information. It is certainly welcome to try, but in all the over a decade I have closely followed planning, pretty much all that has happened is that a great deal of money has been wasted by Molalla making claims it "had" to do something or it "could" do something only to have that be counter to state and county which oversees UGB growth. And Gordon and Jennifer Donnelly are well aware of Molalla's deficient infrastructure and indicated DLCD would not be favorable about UGB growth until Molalla could prove it has infrastructure capacity to handle UGB growth.
I wish I could be proud of the City I live next to but for the over decade I have attempted to participate I have found that logic and respect for state and county rules have meant nothing and that time and a great deal of money have been wasted promoting untenable "plans" in attempts to honor influential land speculators while quality of life features like adequate parks have been ignored. There seems to be a refusal to accept that Oregon's land use goals apply to Molalla. I hope you can start to guide the City to actually use the plans that public grants have funded like the Downtown Master Plan mixed use and the Parks Plan and not to waste endless money promoting land use schemes that are contrary to land use rules.
Sincerely,
Susan Hansen